Kathey Marsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Knut Anders Hatlen wrote: > >>Bryan Pendleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> >>>>I am not convinced that the comment about LMTBLKPRC is correct, I >>>>think it is also allowed for FIXROWPRC. Will look more into that. >>>> >>>> >>>I think so, too, although there are a number of restrictions in the >>>fixed row query protocol case. From page 126 of DRDA V.1: >>> >>> For the fixed row query protocol, the qryrowset is a parameter on >>> the OPNQRY command that allows the requester to specify the return >>> of a rowset with the OPNQRYRM. This parameter applies only to >>> scrollable, non-sensitive dynamic, non-rowset cursors (QRYATTSCR >>> is TRUE, QRYATTSNS is not QRYSNSDYN, QRYATTSET is FALSE). For these >>> cursors, qryrowset specifies that a DRDA rowset is to be returned >>> with the OPNQRYRM (see Appendix B (on page 655) for more information >>> about DRDA rowsets). For all other cursors, the parameter is ignored >>> and no data is returned with the OPNQRYRM. >>> >>>Note that not only are there restrictions, but it also seems that >>>the client has to request this rowset. We can't just send it >>>automatically when the restrictions are met unless the client also >>>sets qryrowset. >>> >>> >> >>I think you are right, Bryan. The Query Data Transfer Protocol Rules >>(DRDA Vol 1, p. 441) specify this in greater detail. >> >>One thing that puzzles me is that the network server has no code for >>returning QRYDTA in OPNQRYRM when the protocol is FIXROWPRC. The way I >>read the spec, the server is required to return QRYDTA in FIXROWPRC >>when qryrowset is non-zero (and there are no LOBs, and the cursor >>doesn't support multi-row fetch). Does anyone know why it never sends >>QRYDTA with OPNQRYRM? >> > Is there a case where client sends a request with a non-zero qryrowset > that would necessitate that the QRYDTA be sent with the OPNQRYRM?
I guess not, since we would have noticed that it failed... :) > I am guessing at the time of implementation JCC was not sending > qryrowset at all and the support is not there, simply because no one > has added it yet. In general, there are many pieces of the protocol > that are missing because the existing clients don't need it and because > the spec is biggish. If we need it we should add it (with sensitivity > to older clients of course). We probably don't need it yet. I think I'll just add support for the optional QRYDTA in the limited block protocol this time, and then someone might add what's needed for the fixed row protocol later. -- Knut Anders
